We actually use 1/12. (AutoCAD typically displays that as 3/32" based on
your units display.)
1/12 works numerically well for most plan work- at 1/4"=1'-0" it's 4"
tall...1/8"=1'-0" means 8" tall.
Scale factor Text Size
1 1/12
4 4/12 = 1/3
8 8/12 = 2/3
12 12/12 = 1
16 16/12 = 1-1/3
24 24/12 = 2
32 32/12 = 2-2/3
48 48/12 = 4
64 64/12 = 5-1/3
96 96/12 = 8
128 128/12 = 10-2/3
192 192/12 = 16
240 240/12 = 20
360 360/12 = 30
etc, etc.
Robert Grandmaison
"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:js7bst0pdklll5ogqekufjvvv33459sr0c@4ax.com...
> We use 3/32".
>
> I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid issue.
The
> problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for general
> documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of space.
I am
> currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced
the
> original bldg. docs used 5/64."
>
> I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than the
size.
> If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems.
We use
> an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's at
half
> size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered,
since
> when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.
>
> However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the
text
> heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation.
Half
> size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used
in lieu
> of full size docs for building purposes.
>
> Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets, usually
> requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the field
under
> bad lighting conditions.
>
> In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
> distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument
will go
> away someday.
>
> I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any
to
> use 3/32".
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
> wrote:
>
> >The environment:
> >
> >Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
> >multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2.
Of
> >the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated
drafter/designer,
> >the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our projects
> >are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our
clients
> >range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of
local
> >government entities.
> >
> >The question:
> >
> >Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is my
> >understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be
microfilmed
> >must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
> >co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings
and
> >we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32
but
> >when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
> >marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation
marginal,
> >and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
> >perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
> >projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the standardization
> >issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).
> >
> >Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Mike Weaver
> >Charles Bettisworth & Co.
> >
> >
>